What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > >

> > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > >

> > > > Why do you need to know?

> > >

> > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> >

> > Why should there be a distance loss?

>

> Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

>

> As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

 

But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > >

> > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > >

> > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > >

> > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> >

> > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> >

> > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

>

> But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

 

[BiggErn]

> @davep043 said:

> As @Vindog says, the difference between a Penalty Area and OB is that a ball in the PA is known to be ON the property dedicated to playing golf, and is in play if found, the other is OFF of the hundreds of acres you have been allocated to play golf on. The penalty for the OB should be steeper, for completely missing those hundreds of acres. As for a lost ball, if you were to find it, it could take you 2 or 3 or more strokes to extricate it to a point where you can play toward the hole. Why should the penalty be smaller than the consequences of finding the shot?

 

After sliding that far off the rails I hope you find your way back.

[BiggErn]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > >

> > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > >

> > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > >

> > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > >

> > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> >

> > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

>

 

I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > >

> > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > >

> > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > >

> > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > >

> > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> >

> > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

>

 

Still not making sense. You can’t go to the bottom of a pond to play your ball just like you can’t go off the property to play your ball. In both cases you hit a wayward shot. In one, you get credit for the distance you were able to keep in play and only get penalized one shot. In the other, distance penalty, effectively two shots. Illogical. And not all OB is off property. Sometimes you just hit it into unplayable terrain. There is no reason to have inconsistent application of penalties.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

 

> Still not making sense. You can’t go to the bottom of a pond to play your ball just like you can’t go off the property to play your ball. In both cases you hit a wayward shot. In one, you get credit for the distance you were able to keep in play and only get penalized one shot. In the other, distance penalty, effectively two shots. Illogical. And not all OB is off property. Sometimes you just hit it into unplayable terrain. There is no reason to have inconsistent application of penalties.

If it makes sense to you to treat a ball that is in a specific hazard ON the golf course the same as a ball that is completely OFF the golf course, your idea of "logic" will always differ from mine. Fortunately for me, for the last 250 years the Ruling Bodies have seen it the same way I do. And when faced with an opportunity just last year to move towards your view of "logical", they refused.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

>

> > Still not making sense. You can’t go to the bottom of a pond to play your ball just like you can’t go off the property to play your ball. In both cases you hit a wayward shot. In one, you get credit for the distance you were able to keep in play and only get penalized one shot. In the other, distance penalty, effectively two shots. Illogical. And not all OB is off property. Sometimes you just hit it into unplayable terrain. There is no reason to have inconsistent application of penalties.

> If it makes sense to you to treat a ball that is in a specific hazard ON the golf course the same as a ball that is completely OFF the golf course, your idea of "logic" will always differ from mine. Fortunately for me, for the last 250 years the Ruling Bodies have seen it the same way I do. And when faced with an opportunity just last year to move towards your view of "logical", they refused.

 

Explain why it should be treated differently. Why two shots that each went wayward and landed where they cannot be played or retrieved should be treated differently.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> >

> > > Still not making sense. You can’t go to the bottom of a pond to play your ball just like you can’t go off the property to play your ball. In both cases you hit a wayward shot. In one, you get credit for the distance you were able to keep in play and only get penalized one shot. In the other, distance penalty, effectively two shots. Illogical. And not all OB is off property. Sometimes you just hit it into unplayable terrain. There is no reason to have inconsistent application of penalties.

> > If it makes sense to you to treat a ball that is in a specific hazard ON the golf course the same as a ball that is completely OFF the golf course, your idea of "logic" will always differ from mine. Fortunately for me, for the last 250 years the Ruling Bodies have seen it the same way I do. And when faced with an opportunity just last year to move towards your view of "logical", they refused.

>

> Explain why it should be treated differently. Why two shots that each went wayward and landed where they cannot be played or retrieved should be treated differently.

 

You've already rejected the notion that a ball that is within the property you're on should be treated differently from a ball that has left said property. As I said, that IS logical, to me, and to the Ruling Bodies, and to a fairly large percentage of golfers. As with real estate, location matters.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > >

> > > > Still not making sense. You can’t go to the bottom of a pond to play your ball just like you can’t go off the property to play your ball. In both cases you hit a wayward shot. In one, you get credit for the distance you were able to keep in play and only get penalized one shot. In the other, distance penalty, effectively two shots. Illogical. And not all OB is off property. Sometimes you just hit it into unplayable terrain. There is no reason to have inconsistent application of penalties.

> > > If it makes sense to you to treat a ball that is in a specific hazard ON the golf course the same as a ball that is completely OFF the golf course, your idea of "logic" will always differ from mine. Fortunately for me, for the last 250 years the Ruling Bodies have seen it the same way I do. And when faced with an opportunity just last year to move towards your view of "logical", they refused.

> >

> > Explain why it should be treated differently. Why two shots that each went wayward and landed where they cannot be played or retrieved should be treated differently.

>

> You've already rejected the notion that a ball that is within the property you're on should be treated differently from a ball that has left said property. As I said, that IS logical, to me, and to the Ruling Bodies, and to a fairly large percentage of golfers. As with real estate, location matters.

 

Why? You are just saying it matters because it matters and the R&A says so. Why should a pond being on the property as opposed to an area off the property make a difference? You had a target, you swung, you were offline, the ball went a certain distance then passed to a point that it cannot be played or retrieved. Why is one penalized more than the other?

[Vindog]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > >

> > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > >

> > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > >

> > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > >

> > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> >

>

> I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

 

Sure. But that will be two strokes for hitting hit off the property.

[BiggErn]

> @Vindog said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > >

> > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > >

> > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > >

> > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > >

> >

> > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

>

> Sure. But thjat will be teo strokes though> @BiggErn said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > >

> > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > >

> > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > >

> > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > >

> >

> > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

>

> Sure. But that will be two strokes for hitting hit off the property.

 

And you would be wrong.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > >

> > > > > Still not making sense. You can’t go to the bottom of a pond to play your ball just like you can’t go off the property to play your ball. In both cases you hit a wayward shot. In one, you get credit for the distance you were able to keep in play and only get penalized one shot. In the other, distance penalty, effectively two shots. Illogical. And not all OB is off property. Sometimes you just hit it into unplayable terrain. There is no reason to have inconsistent application of penalties.

> > > > If it makes sense to you to treat a ball that is in a specific hazard ON the golf course the same as a ball that is completely OFF the golf course, your idea of "logic" will always differ from mine. Fortunately for me, for the last 250 years the Ruling Bodies have seen it the same way I do. And when faced with an opportunity just last year to move towards your view of "logical", they refused.

> > >

> > > Explain why it should be treated differently. Why two shots that each went wayward and landed where they cannot be played or retrieved should be treated differently.

> >

> > You've already rejected the notion that a ball that is within the property you're on should be treated differently from a ball that has left said property. As I said, that IS logical, to me, and to the Ruling Bodies, and to a fairly large percentage of golfers. As with real estate, location matters.

>

> Why? You are just saying it matters because it matters and the R&A says so. Why should a pond being on the property as opposed to an area off the property make a difference? You had a target, you swung, you were offline, the ball went a certain distance then passed to a point that it cannot be played or retrieved. Why is one penalized more than the other?

 

As mentioned, what you are mulling over is definition. At their heart, many definitions start arbitrarily. Why is the green different from the teeing ground? I have no clue but that's how they are defined for the game of golf. Why are there force outs in baseball but in some instances you need to tag the runner? I haven't the foggiest, but that's how it is defined for the game of baseball.

[Vindog]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > > >

> > > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

> >

> > Sure. But thjat will be teo strokes though> @BiggErn said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > > >

> > > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

> >

> > Sure. But that will be two strokes for hitting hit off the property.

>

> And you would be wrong.

 

Not sure what you are getting at but I think I'll just leave it alone.

[BiggErn]

> @Vindog said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

> > >

> > > Sure. But thjat will be teo strokes though> @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

> > >

> > > Sure. But that will be two strokes for hitting hit off the property.

> >

> > And you would be wrong.

>

> Not sure what you are getting at but I think I'll just leave it alone.

 

Stakes that were once white were changed to red so instead of it being OB it’s now a hazard.

[Vindog]

Nobody has answered why it needs changing.

[Vindog]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > > > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

> > > >

> > > > Sure. But thjat will be teo strokes though> @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > > > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

> > > >

> > > > Sure. But that will be two strokes for hitting hit off the property.

> > >

> > > And you would be wrong.

> >

> > Not sure what you are getting at but I think I'll just leave it alone.

>

> Stakes that were once white were changed to red so instead of it being OB it’s now a hazard.

 

But why?

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Still not making sense. You can’t go to the bottom of a pond to play your ball just like you can’t go off the property to play your ball. In both cases you hit a wayward shot. In one, you get credit for the distance you were able to keep in play and only get penalized one shot. In the other, distance penalty, effectively two shots. Illogical. And not all OB is off property. Sometimes you just hit it into unplayable terrain. There is no reason to have inconsistent application of penalties.

> > > > > If it makes sense to you to treat a ball that is in a specific hazard ON the golf course the same as a ball that is completely OFF the golf course, your idea of "logic" will always differ from mine. Fortunately for me, for the last 250 years the Ruling Bodies have seen it the same way I do. And when faced with an opportunity just last year to move towards your view of "logical", they refused.

> > > >

> > > > Explain why it should be treated differently. Why two shots that each went wayward and landed where they cannot be played or retrieved should be treated differently.

> > >

> > > You've already rejected the notion that a ball that is within the property you're on should be treated differently from a ball that has left said property. As I said, that IS logical, to me, and to the Ruling Bodies, and to a fairly large percentage of golfers. As with real estate, location matters.

> >

> > Why? You are just saying it matters because it matters and the R&A says so. Why should a pond being on the property as opposed to an area off the property make a difference? You had a target, you swung, you were offline, the ball went a certain distance then passed to a point that it cannot be played or retrieved. Why is one penalized more than the other?

>

> As mentioned, what you are mulling over is definition. At their heart, many definitions start arbitrarily. Why is the green different from the teeing ground? I have no clue but that's how they are defined for the game of golf. Why are there force outs in baseball but in some instances you need to tag the runner? I haven't the foggiest, but that's how it is defined for the game of baseball.

 

The green is maintained differently because when you get close to the hole you have to roll the ball in. Having to fly it in would take forever. So the green is kept differently to allow for roll. Logical. Distance penalties- illogical.

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @BiggErn said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > > > > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure. But thjat will be teo strokes though> @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eliminate distance penalties. It makes no sense that if you hit a ball into water you drop at the point the ball went in and take a one-stroke penalty, but if you hit it into a bunch of trees and brush you have to effectively take a two-stroke penalty.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know where it is if you can't find it?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you need to know?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Because you might be able to avoid the distance loss.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Why should there be a distance loss?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Because your first ball is either lost or out of bounds. There is no end point thus the distance gained is cancelled. But the stroke should count.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As far as comparing OB to what formerly was known as water hazards you get into the argument of definitions. You can play out of red/yellow staked PAs (if you can find it) but not from outside the boundaries of the course. Why should you be able to play from off the property? In my opinion you shouldn't be able to.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But the bottom of a pond is part of the golf course? Makes no sense. If you hit it OB, drop at the line it went out and that is your one stroke penalty. The same as if you hit it into a lake.

> > > > > > > The bottom of the pond is indeed within the property of the golf course. The neighbors across the street can't come and paddle their canoe in the lake while you're playing golf. And you're even more lenient than the rule that was tried out in the 60s and rejected after only one year. At least with that one, you got a stroke penalty and had to replay the shot, YOU want to gain some of the distance your ball traveled on its path over the fences. To me, the current rules are completely logical.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have seen where courses have literally spray painted white stakes to red. I sort of get it, you don’t want people playing from other people’s property and such. You can leave the stakes white and say it’s a forced dropped versus potentially being able to play a shot from a hazard.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure. But that will be two strokes for hitting hit off the property.

> > > >

> > > > And you would be wrong.

> > >

> > > Not sure what you are getting at but I think I'll just leave it alone.

> >

> > Stakes that were once white were changed to red so instead of it being OB it’s now a hazard.

>

> But why?

 

Because distance penalties associated with white stakes are nonsensical and illogical.

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> Nobody has answered why it needs changing.

 

 

To remove an illogical and unfair aspect of the game

[Vindog]

Distance penalty is 100% logical. You're issue is Why OB is OB and why PA are PA.

 

Really the issue that nobody will admit is that all it boils down to the fact that they don't want to take the extra penalty for hitting the worst possible shot in golf.

 

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > Nobody has answered why it needs changing.

>

>

> To remove an illogical and unfair aspect of the game

 

You mean so that you don't have to take the extra penalty.

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> Distance penalty is 100% logical. You're issue is Why OB is OB and why PA are PA.

>

> Really the issue that nobody will admit is that all it boils down to the fact that they don't want to take the extra penalty for hitting the worst possible shot in golf.

>

 

Explain why a shot OB is worse than the same exact shot into a pond.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > Distance penalty is 100% logical. You're issue is Why OB is OB and why PA are PA.

> >

> > Really the issue that nobody will admit is that all it boils down to the fact that they don't want to take the extra penalty for hitting the worst possible shot in golf.

> >

>

> Explain why a shot OB is worse than the same exact shot into a pond.

 

That's not for me to answer I guess because my previous answer was not good enough. Email the USGA, better yet, The R&A. I would be interested in their reply.

[Vindog]

Fine, I'll bite.

 

 

One is IN BOUNDS

One is OUT OF BOUNDS

 

It really is that simple.

[BiggErn]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > Distance penalty is 100% logical. You're issue is Why OB is OB and why PA are PA.

> > >

> > > Really the issue that nobody will admit is that all it boils down to the fact that they don't want to take the extra penalty for hitting the worst possible shot in golf.

> > >

> >

> > Explain why a shot OB is worse than the same exact shot into a pond.

>

> That's not for me to answer I guess because my previous answer was not good enough. Email the USGA, better yet, The R&A. I would be interested in their reply.

 

I don’t think the R&A would be the best to consult. Of course they’re gonna stand by their guns with all of the Euro courses set up with goofy OB all over. Playing bank shots off of the clubhouse or OB literally a yard off the fairway yet your ball is playable from that gravel path with no relief.

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> Fine, I'll bite.

>

>

> One is IN BOUNDS

> One is OUT OF BOUNDS

>

> It really is that simple.

 

So you have no answer. No idea. Nothing to add. Got it.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > Fine, I'll bite.

> >

> >

> > One is IN BOUNDS

> > One is OUT OF BOUNDS

> >

> > It really is that simple.

>

> So you have no answer. No idea. Nothing to add. Got it.

 

No, I don't have anything to add other than what has already been said. It's how the areas are defined. I did not make up the game.

One is in bounds.

One is out of bounds, which is worse than in bounds.

Not that hard to get, I don't think. But ask that question of whichever Ruling Body you choose.

[KyGolf]

If you are hitting your ball OB or in to areas where it can't be found often enough that the penalty is a concern to you, you need to either work on your swing or your strategy.

[Newby]

PAs are on the course by intent. They are designed to make you thing about how you play and where you aim. They have a particular purpose in the game. Bunkers are similar but not the same.

OOB simply defines the limit of the area in which the game is to be played. It has no purpose in the game

Snakes and ladders can be played with your token on a snake but not when your token is off the board.

If when playing chess, you accidentally knock your piece off the board, you replace it where it was. If you move it to a new position, you suffer the potential consequences if you moved it to a poor position.

The only difference with golf is that you pay a penalty to get readmission to the course.

[Halebopp]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > Fine, I'll bite.

> >

> >

> > One is IN BOUNDS

> > One is OUT OF BOUNDS

> >

> > It really is that simple.

>

> So you have no answer. No idea. Nothing to add. Got it.

 

There are consequences in all sports for sending the ball off the playing field. Do you think it's unfair a player loses the point in tennis if s/he hits the ball out of bounds or that you lose possession of the ball if you send the ball off the pitch in football?